Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Appeal to popularity refers to the general population and general popularity, not a group of scientists educated in and experienced in fields highly relevant to the subject matter.
It is also does not meet the requirements for a fallacious appeal to authority.
Quote:
Argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is an inductive-reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously: either the authority is not a subject-matter expert, or there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter, or both.[1][2][3]
These scientists are experts in this subject matter and there is consensus among experts in the subject matter.
Nice try.
Go to a trial and tell the judge that expert testimony is fallacious and get laughed out of the court room.
There's absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with teaching evolution as far as I'm concerned.
Many posters say otherwise. They believe that evolution is wrong, for whatever reason. To them, the concept of evolution means things they cannot accept.
If i was made in the image of God, I'd be invisible. Alas, I'm not. I know this because they ask me to pay when I want to get on the subway or go to a movie.
Sure...all these scientists, paleontologists, geneticists, biologists, anthropologists, medical doctors, PHDs, and Nobel Prize winners have no "sense of rationality." They're all incapable of rational thought.
Meanwhile...
These people are bastions of rationality and scientific thought.
The level of willful ignorance and delusion among creationists is utterly mind boggling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin
Appeal to popularity refers to the general population and general popularity, not a group of scientists educated in and experienced in fields highly relevant to the subject matter.
It is also does not meet the requirements for a fallacious appeal to authority.
These scientists are experts in this subject matter and there is consensus among experts in the subject matter.
Nice try.
Go to a trial and tell the judge that expert testimony is fallacious and get laughed out of the court room.
Many posters say otherwise. They believe that evolution is wrong, for whatever reason. To them, the concept of evolution means things they cannot accept.
To bad their opposition to the Law of Evolution and its teaching in schools is NOT based on fact, but, rather, is emotion-based, dogma-based, fear-based.
I have investigated the theory of evolution and found it to be lacking in support for what it claims to be true - and I quite simply amazed that anyone could close their mind so much as you have, which is required to even begin to believe the absolutely inane premises that theory of evolution puts forth.
This is subterfuge.
You've investigated the theory of evolution, and you've stated repeatedly that you believe that micro-evolution exists. That it has evidence that supports its existence. That is evolution. You have found evidence supporting evolution. But because of your religious beliefs, you can't reconcile an acceptance of evolution, and so you've devised an imaginary divide. For convenience, you state that you accept micro-evolution, but that believing in micro-evolution is not a belief in evolution and that you utterly reject macro-evolution. Micro or macro, they are all part of the theory of evolution.
And the theory of evolution is foundational to many specialized biological sciences. Which is why it needs to be included in science curriculums. You can't teach calculus without a person having an understanding of algebra. And you can't teach genetics without a person having an understanding of the theory of evolution. Evolution is foundational. And if our students are going to be prepared to pursue science careers and compete with their peers around the world, that preparation has to include foundational science.
The amount of mental gymnastics people go through in order to retain a belief in something, simply because they want to believe it, never ceases to amaze.
Intelligent design is one great big exercise in confirmation bias and delusion where people
1. Form a belief
2. Look for evidence to support their belief, while ignoring evidence to the contrary
The same flawed thinking is highly prevalent in political discussions and other subjects in which emotions are strong and people feel an investment in an idea being true that they don't want to have to abandon.
This is evidenced in countless studies. For example, a recent study where two education plans were presented to two groups each containing a mix of Republicans and Democrats. In Group A, subjects were told that education plan 1 was a Democratic plan and education plan 2 was a Republican plan. In Group B, they were told the opposite. In both Groups A and B, Democrats overwhelmingly chose the plan that was labeled as the Democratic plan, while Republicans overwhelmingly chose the plan that was labeled as the Republican plan. In each group they chose the plan that they were told was from their party about 75% of the time.
This type of thinking is largely human nature, but it is a plague on humanity and inevitably results in poor decision making in politics, business, relationships, science, etc. I see this all the time on investment forums, and these investors continually get burned by their bias and inability to examine information objectively.
The greater the emotions the greater the confirmation bias and the more willful ignorance to the evidence. Belief in holy texts often involves an extreme level of emotional attachment, and a correspondingly extreme level of mental gymnastics and confirmation bias results. This is why historically science and the church have been in constant conflict. This is why this delusion and irrational thinking at times has been able to reach such extremes that Galileo was accused of heresy and sentenced to lifetime imprisonment for simply holding a heliocentric view of the solar system that was factually correct.
Ask yourself, why is there such vehement opposition from so many in the Abrahamic religions to evolution and the big bang theory? But not to the theories of gravity, relativity, and quantum mechanics? The latter are far less well-understood than evolution.
This is precisely why the scientific method was created- to provide guidelines to limit this type of flawed human thinking.
This type of thinking is the opposite of the scientific method where one first
1. asks a questions
2. conducts research
3. forms a hypothesis
The order in which these things occur makes all the difference.
That your argument is internally inconsistent. The nucleus is involved in reproduction (making new cells), but it also directs essential cell functions. You even admit the cell eventually dies without a nucleus. None of what you say provides any evidence to falsify the concepts of evolution.
I'm not at all inconsistent, and I'm not arguing anything ... you're arguing about something you apparent don't understand, including the claim that the nucleus directs essential cell functions other than reproductive functions, when clearly that is not the case, as the cell functions just fine, and performs every task other than reproduction, with it's nucleus removed. And I did not "admit" that cells eventually die, I stated that fact, and gave you the damned reason. That too you apparently don't understand. Put simply ... cells incorporate every complex function that you as an individual have in your biology ... cells have a respiratory, digestive, elimination, immune system, and reproductive system just like you do as a whole human being. All of those functions operate successfully without a nucleus with the exception of reproductive processes for which the instructions for that reproduction are provide by DNA. The fact is, DNA is really a very complex organic data storage system for the repository of genetic code, accessible by the cell for reproduction, and construction of proteins.
This directly challenges the idea that DNA or the nucleus controls those other essential functions, because it is clearly observable that this is NOT THE CASE ... and you claiming it does, does not change that fact. It only demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about, at a very basic level.
Furthermore, this ought not to be such a big surprise to anyone who really knows something about cell biology, since there are plenty of cells which do not possess a nucleus, like red blood cells and bacteria. These cells, called "prokaryotic" cells do possess DNA, but not a nucleus, while cells that do have a nucleus are called "eukaryotic" cells.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
All you are doing is mental gymnastics in which you redefine cell functions to try to fit your concept of biology. Sorry, that doesn't fly.
Ah ha! We've discovered the problem here ... you think "thinking" is a strenuous activity like gymnastics! But it's really not ... in fact, it gets easier and easier, the more you do it ... so in that sense, I suppose it is similar to exercise.
I'm not at all inconsistent, and I'm not arguing anything ... you're arguing about something you apparent don't understand, including the claim that the nucleus directs essential cell functions other than reproductive functions, when clearly that is not the case, as the cell functions just fine, and performs every task other than reproduction, with it's nucleus removed. And I did not "admit" that cells eventually die, I stated that fact, and gave you the damned reason. That too you apparently don't understand. Put simply ... cells incorporate every complex function that you as an individual have in your biology ... cells have a respiratory, digestive, elimination, immune system, and reproductive system just like you do as a whole human being. All of those functions operate successfully without a nucleus with the exception of reproductive processes for which the instructions for that reproduction are provide by DNA. The fact is, DNA is really a very complex organic data storage system for the repository of genetic code, accessible by the cell for reproduction, and construction of proteins.
This directly challenges the idea that DNA or the nucleus controls those other essential functions, because it is clearly observable that this is NOT THE CASE ... and you claiming it does, does not change that fact. It only demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about, at a very basic level.
Furthermore, this ought not to be such a big surprise to anyone who really knows something about cell biology, since there are plenty of cells which do not possess a nucleus, like red blood cells and bacteria. These cells, called "prokaryotic" cells do possess DNA, but not a nucleus, while cells that do have a nucleus are called "eukaryotic" cells.
Ah ha! We've discovered the problem here ... you think "thinking" is a strenuous activity like gymnastics! But it's really not ... in fact, it gets easier and easier, the more you do it ... so in that sense, I suppose it is similar to exercise.
Red cells have no DNA at all.
The cell nucleus evolved from prokaryotes.
The only cells that matter in evolution are germ cells, so your peculiar take on cell metabolism is irrelevant.
With apologies to Shakespeare, "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Guy, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
If matter is a "vast void of energy and information", the Big Bang is not such an unreasonable concept is it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
